About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
a hero. i would like your opinion about what is going on right now with israel and palestine. to gaza. i think they are acting upon hamas in order to put their blame -- against iran and see what your opinions would be. guest: that has been a mess for a long time and i believe we should be noninterventionists. we should not pick sides. i think it would be best for israel and best for that whole region, so i don't believe in getting involved. it is a real mess. it's been created by too much and too many outsiders interfering. but this gaza thing, i mean, attacking and bombing gaza, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. what threat are the palestinians? to israel or anybody else? they are living in total poverty. they have an employment rate probably about 50%. sure, there are going to be militants. you have to understand why they're militants. you know, what is the reasons? they have been held more or less in bondage for decades now. it's a real mess. i think we should not be involved. i think the people there should solve the problems and eventually israel won't be able to depend upon t
in gaza rained down on israel this week. israelies were injured and at least one was killed. but it sure is right -- absolute right of self-defense is responded to defend its people. prime minister netanyahu said it best. the terrorists are committing a double war crime. they fire at israeli citizens and they hide behind palestinianian civilians. but the government in egypt, which was backed by the administration, has condemned israel, not hamas. the terrorist group hamas doesn't want peace with israel. it wants war. it kills israeli citizens and then hides behinds the skirts of palestinian women. israel has the moral right and duty to defend itself from the bar barrack hamas. the united states should be in total support of israel, our ally. the u.s. should be bold in its condemnation of hamas and the u.s. should be bold in this continuing war by terrorist, like hamas, on civilized nations and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. perha
development in israel and gaza. tomorrow we will discuss party in the united states. after that, the executive director for the national congress of american indians explains with the fiscal cliff and native americans and the alaskan native communities. plus, e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. >> there are many people who might even take issue with great saving the union during the civil war. did it lincoln did that? he did. i will not a grant is the only person to save the union, but he was the commanding general of the army that would think the policy to affect, and he was the general who accepted the surrender of the army of northern virginia under robert e. lee that ended the war. if anybody won the war on the battlefield, if you could say that any one person did, and of course you cannot, but one of the things we do when history is we generalize, simplify, because history reality is simply too complicated to get our heads are around if we deal with it in the full complexity. granted save the union during the civil war, and i do contend he same award during reconstruction as well. -- he sav
in israel today. that has been pushed to 3:30 eastern. we will take you there once it gets under way. >> james on our 65 and over line. good afternoon, sir. caller: i'm 85-year-old and i was living good up until the last four years off of my retirement. but in the last four years the cost of living has gone up so much that i can't make it. i have to get out and get odd jobs to buy groceries. and this -- the first of this year i got a 1.7 increase in social security and cost of living went up 30% this year. host: what is the biggest thing that cost of living increase affects for you? caller: just about everything i buy. my grashries and gasoline so i go to a doctor and stores host: how old did you say you were? caller: 85. host: so you've been retired for some time. caller: yes. host: let's to -- go to susan in washington. caller: the economy has affected most of us for a number of years as far as i can tell. i've tried to save money to invest it and when i tried to invest it i lost most of what i put in because of what happened at the twin towers and i don't know that the economy is
by -- met by some tough language from the security council. not from the government, israel or anyone. it was the security council under the charter of the united nations that put that pressure. of course we know that this system worked extremely well. it was 100% performance as a matter of fact. it's not bad for any u.n. organization to get the task and then i think it's probably the only one which succeeded to make it 100% performance. so the -- that means that both destruction capabilities and the monetary capabilities were forcefully placed. so everything looked shiny and fine until the u.s. government -- it was in spring of 1997, through madeline albright made the statement at george mason university, well, it looks like sanctions are -- disarmament is going well. if it goes well we can still not lift the sanctions which was a condition under the security council. sanctions -- so we can't lift the sanctions until saddam hussein is removed. so that came my obsession with the regime change. that, of course, destroyed in the sense the institution and operations. so i think that expe
before the united states as opposed to israel or neighbors of iran? i think it is possible that we could accept something that the iranians would say we have already picked the japan option. we want to demonstrate we have the technical capabilities, but without the possibility of deploying full weapons systems and we would give assurance to the international community. whether the president used slightly more casual language than he intended that day, i do not know. as for timons, remember -- -- time lines, remember, there are a range of tools being used to interrupt, if you will come in iran -- if you will, to iran as fast track to nuclear capability. its sounds implausible, but we really do not know. the deadline keeps shifting, literally keeps shifting, because the iranians are suffering setbacks within their own time line and that is not always apparent to us. i am not saying it has to be done by a particular year or not. there will always be an external variables that slightly change the dynamics of this. >> ellen, can i add on that? i think the reason 2013, early 2014 is the focus
biased israel view. i can tell you what is going on. i love president assad. i stand with them. there has always been peace there. the women wear jeans, they'd drive, they vote. it is more of a democracy and a lot of ways and here. host: what do you think policy should be regarding syria? 5000 people killed in the uprising. caller: those rebels are not syrian. they were planted there. it is really funny. when obama put troops into israel, i think he did all of this for reelection. i am relieved mitt romney did not get elected even though i did not vote for either. i think obama might do the right thing and cut ties with israel. host: we will go to a report actually on syrian president assad. this in "usa today." he said "i am not a puppet." we have a few minutes left on the first segment of "the washington journal." we will go to pete in rhode island on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to see him focus on the economy. host: specifically what part? caller: let's go with the fiscal cliff coming up. my thoughts were my belief is, and i hope somebody calls and corrects me
be built. i spoke earlier today with the consulate general for the state of israel in philadelphia offering my support and concern for the unfortunate circumstances that are taking place in the middle east now in which hundreds of bombs have -- rockets have been shot at israel. some of its largest cities as the targets. and this is a matter in which obviously much high levels in our government, there have been communications and the assurance that israel has the right to defend itself. but i think that we can see in this russia trade agreement that if we can get to the point where there can be relationships that are built on self-interest and economic development, that we can put the weapons aside and move towards a circumstance in which people are focused on economic activity. we see in this crisis a circumstance that we hope will resolve itself. obviously we stand with our ally, but we also hope for a day in which peace will reign and economic opportunities. i agree with david dreier, really is a way in which eventually we can create a circumstance in which people will not have the necess
of their force projection in the persian gulf into that conflict. i think there is hope that the u.s.-israel relationship is strong and open enough and the lines of communication are open up that it would not happen. one of the other things that if it may give a little positivity towards that is a concern that the nuclear facilities are so far in the ground that israel does not producing a satisfactory assault. they would need u.s. plant emissions to carry some of those weapons. perhaps that might give some hope there would be communication, if there is an attack down the line, that the two countries would be to work together and cordray. host: 3 more, go to foreignpolicy.com. thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you for having me. host: that does it for today. we will be back live tomorrow morning but lawmakers make their way back for the lame-duck session that begins today. we will be up there taking your calls and your comments and questions. thank you for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite cor
, working with steve israel to make sure we had the intellectual, financial, whatever resources to prevail in those races. my second time that i spent was to call people who were not successful in this particular election, because everybody here was getting a lot of calls. winning is very noisy. not succeeding is -- the bells don't ring that much. so i wanted to hear from them, what their views were about how we go forward. and then to absorb the calls of my colleagues to see what their view is. but i -- what i talked about here about changing the role of money and politics is really a very important motivator for me to stay in the leader's office. i think it must be done. when people say that, oh, and i read in the course of this week, money didn't make any difference in the campaign. they alwasted their money. well, that really wasn't true. the president of the united states, the most well-known famous respected person on the planet had to spend about $1 billion to set the record straight from what that other big money was putting out there. senate races, house races. tammy douglas had $
think that's across the board , his relationship with israel, his relationship with the muslim world. host: this is a "financial times" editorial today. rethink on drones after petraeus exit. general petraeus has been the master mind behind using deprones to go after al qaeda in the horn of africa, etc. what has been the world reaction to these -- this type of mill tear strategy. guest: the administration has doubled down on thes you of drones. there are hundreds more than there ever were in the bush administration. there's clear security rationale for some of them. there are certainly issues. the administration's execity -- executive privilege in making these decisions. i don't think petraeus was the only person who has been the master mind. this has been -- there are many figures in the administration that feel strongly about this. i don't see the policy changing. but there is certainly a feeling in pakistan, especially, in the horn of africa and other places new york yemen, it was -- i believe it was the day of -- the day after, the morning after the evening of obama's victory, th
capabilities to go up to 20%. israel and u.s. will build the case for military action, low level violence will continue against iran in various forms. and identify ran -- iran, can prepare an attack on the reactors considering potential success of the operation against the facility in syria. and this will all remove iran's constraints to acquire nuclear weapons. so we are either -- really concerned with the situation. let me add people of iran will continue to suffer under very tough sanctions. so there are two things which must change. diplomacy and the inspections. first diplomacy. five plus one has served the purpose of the it united front. five plus one mean to me united nations security council related global responsibility, europeans like to prefer three plus three which means the european union is the major player. i'm nervous about that, if you are europe you had better say three plus three otherwise you will not be served your dinner. five plus one, of course, it is important to keep on. i think u.s. should not do what it has done, hide inside this group. u.s. has now tried to ta
. >> are you concerned about is real? >> interesting, israel has a lot at stake, but they are also an independent decision maker. they have their own interest in this and have made it clear that they are not prepared to except without some of the military action iran with a clear path to a nuclear weapon. one scenario would be for the illustration to try to engage with the iranians diplomatically. with the other countries involved in the so called p five. offering a robust disclosure to the iranians if there regime will give up its nuclear program. to test them, to see if there is a diplomatic outcome that is accessible. if there is not, i think that that process will be important for the administration to set up options following the failure,, or the iranian regime. i would be very much on the lower end of military options. as part of the scenario of giving them over to give up weapons, it is that kind of scenario development i would try, which is the direction we're heading in at this point. dennis is going to speak to you later this morning, he is terrific on this subject and yo
not be jeopardized for our one true ally in the middle east, the state of israel. this included showing some support for what is become widely dome of the iron rocket defense system. but our focus in the middle east has certainly not stopped there. we've gone to great lengths in this congress to zero in on what i believe is the greatest threat we have to our own national security, and that is a nuclear armed iran. i've been pleased to team with representative ted deutch and senator kirk on a number of bills to stem this -- and confront this threat. our actions have ranged from strengthening sanctions on iran's energy sector to promoting human rights and democracy inside iran and much more. in fact, one of our most important accomplishments in this congress will have been a strong sanctions package which passed both houses this summer and which included these provisions that we authored. finally, i'd like to highlight the ongoing work to pass a bipartisan budget agreement. this is an initiative that i have been proud to advance, starting with the bipartisan letter urging the supercommittee to go big,
in israel where diversity visas were received. or albania where we went to war to ensure the integrity and the saving of those people. or hungary or iceland, or maybe our strong ally, turkey. that's what diversity visas represent. and there is no reason to borrow from peter to pay paul f my friends would really pay attention to the recent charge of the november 6 election, they would know what america needs is comprehensive immigration reform. if i might in this debate of deficit reduction and the need for increased revenue, we know that if you had comprehensive immigration reform over 10 years, you would introduce them to the economy -- into the economy $1.5 trillion. that's a reason to come to the floor right now and vote this bill down and start in the next week and put on the floor the bills that mr. gutierrez and myself and many others at one time senator mccain, wanted to put on the floor of the senate and the house. my concern is that we try to come in a bipartisan manner. i introduced legislation, an amendment in the markup to say that let's study this issue of fraud with diver
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)